Syrian refugee Hassan Akkad slammed the UK government's new Rwanda deportation policy announced on Thursday, saying Britain deserved better leadership.
Hassan Akkad called out the different treatment offered to Ukrainian refugees compared to asylum seekers from elsewhere on British TV [Getty]
The New Arab Staff
15 April, 2022
Syrian refugee and award-winning documentary filmmaker Hassan Akkad has hit back at critics on social media following his appearance on British television slamming the new UK-Rwanda deportation policy.
Akkad appeared on Good Morning Britain on Thursday morning to speak out against the British government's scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. He said UK leaders were trying to “scapegoat” vulnerable people and debunked inflated notions of the country's “refugee crisis”.
In response to comments on Twitter accusing the Syrian of “slagging off” the UK, the former English teacher expressed his love for Britain and said it deserved better.
“When I go on telly to talk about the abhorrent treatment of refugees and migrants in Britain, I’m not ‘slagging off Britain’.
“I have applied for British citizenship, and I’m hoping to get it. I love this country. I just think that we deserve better than this corrupt government,” he wrote on Twitter.
Akkad was part of pro-democracy protests in Syria in 2011. He was imprisoned and tortured by the regime, meeting Bashar al-Assad face-to-face at one point.
He later fled Damascus and travelled across Europe via Calais, then on to the UK in 2015.
He told British broadcasters that the threat of deportation to Rwanda will not deter people coming in small boats across the English Channel.
RELATED
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the Rwanda deportation scheme on Thursday, presenting the plan as a way to “disrupt the business model of [people-smuggling] gangs”.
Critics of the scheme, which include politicians across political parties, refugee charities and immigration lawyers, have expressed grave concerns over the threat to human rights and the potential cost - estimated at £1.4 billion a year.
'Cowardly' and 'barbaric' plan to process refugees in Rwanda slammed
Priti Patel signs the accord with Rwandan deputy foreign minister Vincent Biruta
MORNING STAR
THE government was branded “institutionally racist,” “cowardly” and “barbaric” yesterday over multimillion-pound plans for asylum-seekers who cross the Channel in small boats to be processed in Rwanda.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted that he expects a court challenge to the proposals, contained in clause 28 of the Nationality and Borders Bill, to detain and fly migrants more than 4,000 miles on chartered planes to the east African country.
He said the Royal Navy would take over “operational command” from Border Force in the English Channel to ensure that “no boat makes it to the UK undetected.”
About 250 to 300 military personnel will be dedicated to police migrants on busy days, working on ships and aircraft in the English Channel.
An initial £120 million is expected to be paid to the Rwandan government under an economic deal, with Home Secretary Priti Patel striking an agreement during a visit to the capital Kigali.
She said that the “vast majority” of those who arrive in Britain “illegally” will be detained and considered for relocation to Rwanda but declined to share specific details.
The number of people who can be relocated will be “unlimited,” with the first due to receive formal notifications within weeks and the first flights expected to take place in the coming months.
Mr Johnson pledged £50 million in new funding for boats, aerial surveillance and military personnel to help ensure that the measures are a “very considerable deterrent” to crossings.
He said the individuals who succeed in reaching Britain “will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense” but to Greek-style detention centres, the first of which will open “shortly.”
Human rights groups warned that similar practices in Australia had led to “rampant abuses” in camps, including rape, murder and suicide.
They called on the government to treat refugees with dignity and compassion by creating more safe routes to claim asylum and dropping the Borders Bill.
Refugee Action chief executive Tim Naor Hilton said that the “grubby cash-for-people plan” would be a “cowardly, barbaric and inhumane way to treat people fleeing persecution and war.”
He added: “Our so-called ‘Global Britain’ is offshoring its responsibilities onto Europe’s former colonies instead of doing our fair share to help some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.”
Freedom from Torture chief executive Sonya Sceats said that the plans were “deeply disturbing and should horrify anybody with a conscience.”
She said: “It is even more dismaying that the UK government has agreed this deal with a state known to practice torture, as we know from the many Rwandan torture survivors we have treated over the years.”
Steve Valdez-Symonds of Amnesty International UK argued that the “ill-conceived” plans, which he said would inflict further suffering while wasting huge amounts of public money, showed “how far removed from humanity the government is.”
He said: “After the chaos and bureaucracy-ridden failures of schemes the government clearly never truly wanted for Afghans and Ukrainians, this is a hugely misjudged distraction from the core work of creating a humane and properly functioning asylum system.”
Sophie McCann of Doctors without Borders (MSF) said the group had “witnessed some of the worst suffering” in Australia’s offshore camps on Nauru island.
She said: “Children as young as nine years old were trying to kill themselves.
“This kind of suffering is what awaits refugees in Rwanda. It is medically and ethically reprehensible.”
She pointed out that the measures would deny refugees opportunities to gain a fair hearing and conceal their suffering from public view.
“Make no mistake, this government knows what the impact of this policy will be — it is knowingly and willingly subjecting refugees to horrific suffering,” she said.
Scottish Greens human rights spokeswoman Maggie Chapman said: “Even by the terrible standards of the institutionally racist Home Office, this would be a disgraceful new low.
“It is a repressive and authoritarian proposal that rejects the fundamental principle and right of asylum.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called the plans “unworkable,” “extortionate” and an attempt to distract from Mr Johnson being fined for breaching his own Covid-19 laws.
The deal with Rwanda comes after other locations touted, including Ascension Island, Albania and Gibraltar, were rejected, at times angrily, by the governments concerned.
Priti Patel signs the accord with Rwandan deputy foreign minister Vincent Biruta
MORNING STAR
THE government was branded “institutionally racist,” “cowardly” and “barbaric” yesterday over multimillion-pound plans for asylum-seekers who cross the Channel in small boats to be processed in Rwanda.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson admitted that he expects a court challenge to the proposals, contained in clause 28 of the Nationality and Borders Bill, to detain and fly migrants more than 4,000 miles on chartered planes to the east African country.
He said the Royal Navy would take over “operational command” from Border Force in the English Channel to ensure that “no boat makes it to the UK undetected.”
About 250 to 300 military personnel will be dedicated to police migrants on busy days, working on ships and aircraft in the English Channel.
An initial £120 million is expected to be paid to the Rwandan government under an economic deal, with Home Secretary Priti Patel striking an agreement during a visit to the capital Kigali.
She said that the “vast majority” of those who arrive in Britain “illegally” will be detained and considered for relocation to Rwanda but declined to share specific details.
The number of people who can be relocated will be “unlimited,” with the first due to receive formal notifications within weeks and the first flights expected to take place in the coming months.
Mr Johnson pledged £50 million in new funding for boats, aerial surveillance and military personnel to help ensure that the measures are a “very considerable deterrent” to crossings.
He said the individuals who succeed in reaching Britain “will be taken not to hotels at vast public expense” but to Greek-style detention centres, the first of which will open “shortly.”
Human rights groups warned that similar practices in Australia had led to “rampant abuses” in camps, including rape, murder and suicide.
They called on the government to treat refugees with dignity and compassion by creating more safe routes to claim asylum and dropping the Borders Bill.
Refugee Action chief executive Tim Naor Hilton said that the “grubby cash-for-people plan” would be a “cowardly, barbaric and inhumane way to treat people fleeing persecution and war.”
He added: “Our so-called ‘Global Britain’ is offshoring its responsibilities onto Europe’s former colonies instead of doing our fair share to help some of the most vulnerable people on the planet.”
Freedom from Torture chief executive Sonya Sceats said that the plans were “deeply disturbing and should horrify anybody with a conscience.”
She said: “It is even more dismaying that the UK government has agreed this deal with a state known to practice torture, as we know from the many Rwandan torture survivors we have treated over the years.”
Steve Valdez-Symonds of Amnesty International UK argued that the “ill-conceived” plans, which he said would inflict further suffering while wasting huge amounts of public money, showed “how far removed from humanity the government is.”
He said: “After the chaos and bureaucracy-ridden failures of schemes the government clearly never truly wanted for Afghans and Ukrainians, this is a hugely misjudged distraction from the core work of creating a humane and properly functioning asylum system.”
Sophie McCann of Doctors without Borders (MSF) said the group had “witnessed some of the worst suffering” in Australia’s offshore camps on Nauru island.
She said: “Children as young as nine years old were trying to kill themselves.
“This kind of suffering is what awaits refugees in Rwanda. It is medically and ethically reprehensible.”
She pointed out that the measures would deny refugees opportunities to gain a fair hearing and conceal their suffering from public view.
“Make no mistake, this government knows what the impact of this policy will be — it is knowingly and willingly subjecting refugees to horrific suffering,” she said.
Scottish Greens human rights spokeswoman Maggie Chapman said: “Even by the terrible standards of the institutionally racist Home Office, this would be a disgraceful new low.
“It is a repressive and authoritarian proposal that rejects the fundamental principle and right of asylum.”
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called the plans “unworkable,” “extortionate” and an attempt to distract from Mr Johnson being fined for breaching his own Covid-19 laws.
The deal with Rwanda comes after other locations touted, including Ascension Island, Albania and Gibraltar, were rejected, at times angrily, by the governments concerned.
Tory Rwanda deportation plan sparks huge backlash
NGOs, faith groups and MPs baffled by PM's ‘fly Channel refugees to East Africa’ deal
Royal Navy HMS Blazer tows two small boats as it arrives in Dover, Kent,
following a number of small boat incidents in the Channel
MORNING STAR
A TORY minister has insisted that asylum-seekers will be able to enjoy “fully prosperous” lives in Rwanda despite major concerns about the country’s human rights record.
The government’s multimillion-pound deal with the east African nation comes just 10 months after ministers hit out at its government over failures to investigate human rights violations.
The new plan, announced on Thursday, would see some asylum-seekers, who cross the Channel to Britain in small boats, sent more than 4,000 miles away to have their asylum claims processed.
Ministers scrabbled to defend the plans today following a huge backlash from faith groups, human rights organisations, opposition politicians and even several senior Tories, with the proposals described as “cruel and nasty.”
Questioned on the deal, Home Office minister Tom Pursglove said asylum-seekers transferred to Rwanda would be under no compulsion to stay there, but did not specify how they would be supported to leave or where they would go.
“If they wish to leave and not enter the asylum system there, they are able to do so,” he told the BBC.
“But what will happen is that people will be processed under the Rwandan asylum system, if they are granted they can remain in Rwanda and what Rwanda want to do is to make sure those people can live fully prosperous and successful lives, and the partnership agreement we’ve got with them will help them to achieve that.”
Questioned on the costs of the proposals, Mr Pursglove said the new policy would save Britain money in the “long run” before adding that the costs to Rwanda would be “pretty equivalent” to what is being spent by our government.
Under the deal Rwanda, which already hosts more than 150,000 refugees across six major camps, would receive £120 million in up-front costs, with asylum-seekers being flown over as early as six weeks from now, according to reports.
Rights groups have expressed alarm at the plans, highlighting Rwanda’s “appalling” human rights record, including the fatal shooting of at least 12 refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2018 by Rwandan security forces at a protest.
Describing the plans as “cruelty itself,” Human Rights Watch said in a statement: “Rwanda has a known track record of extrajudicial killings, suspicious deaths in custody, unlawful or arbitrary detention, torture, and abusive prosecutions, particularly targeting critics and dissidents.
“In fact, the UK directly raised its concerns about respect for human rights with Rwanda, and grants asylum to Rwandans who have fled the country, including four just last year.”
In July 2021, Britain’s international ambassador Rita French expressed regret that Rwanda was not carrying out “transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations, including deaths in custody and torture.”
Rwanda is among governments believed to have paid Tony Blair’s Africa Governance Initiative for advice and possible “whitewashing,” though British governments have refused to disclose the “commercially sensitive” details about the former PM’s links to President Paul Kagame.
Concerns have also been raised about the fate of LGBT+ asylum seekers sent to the country due to evidence of ill-treatment and abuse faced by this community in Rwanda.
British-based refugee rights group Rainbow Migration said in a statement: “The agreement means that LGBTQI+ people who have fled life-threatening situations in their home countries, and sought safety and protection from the UK, will instead be sent to a country where it is not safe for LGBTQI+ people to be open about their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Outrage at the plans continued today with former Tory cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell branding them “impractical” and “incredibly expensive.”
Former top civil servant Sir David Normington said the scheme was “inhumane, morally reprehensible, probably unlawful and may well be unworkable.”
Campaigners have also highlighted how a similar deal struck between Israel and Rwanda between 2014 and 2017 saw almost all deported refugees leave the country immediately, with many attempting to return to Europe via people-smuggling routes.
Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon said that deal, like Australia’s offshore model, did not achieve the stated aim of stopping people making dangerous journeys and only caused “significant harm and distress.”
A TORY minister has insisted that asylum-seekers will be able to enjoy “fully prosperous” lives in Rwanda despite major concerns about the country’s human rights record.
The government’s multimillion-pound deal with the east African nation comes just 10 months after ministers hit out at its government over failures to investigate human rights violations.
The new plan, announced on Thursday, would see some asylum-seekers, who cross the Channel to Britain in small boats, sent more than 4,000 miles away to have their asylum claims processed.
Ministers scrabbled to defend the plans today following a huge backlash from faith groups, human rights organisations, opposition politicians and even several senior Tories, with the proposals described as “cruel and nasty.”
Questioned on the deal, Home Office minister Tom Pursglove said asylum-seekers transferred to Rwanda would be under no compulsion to stay there, but did not specify how they would be supported to leave or where they would go.
“If they wish to leave and not enter the asylum system there, they are able to do so,” he told the BBC.
“But what will happen is that people will be processed under the Rwandan asylum system, if they are granted they can remain in Rwanda and what Rwanda want to do is to make sure those people can live fully prosperous and successful lives, and the partnership agreement we’ve got with them will help them to achieve that.”
Questioned on the costs of the proposals, Mr Pursglove said the new policy would save Britain money in the “long run” before adding that the costs to Rwanda would be “pretty equivalent” to what is being spent by our government.
Under the deal Rwanda, which already hosts more than 150,000 refugees across six major camps, would receive £120 million in up-front costs, with asylum-seekers being flown over as early as six weeks from now, according to reports.
Rights groups have expressed alarm at the plans, highlighting Rwanda’s “appalling” human rights record, including the fatal shooting of at least 12 refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2018 by Rwandan security forces at a protest.
Describing the plans as “cruelty itself,” Human Rights Watch said in a statement: “Rwanda has a known track record of extrajudicial killings, suspicious deaths in custody, unlawful or arbitrary detention, torture, and abusive prosecutions, particularly targeting critics and dissidents.
“In fact, the UK directly raised its concerns about respect for human rights with Rwanda, and grants asylum to Rwandans who have fled the country, including four just last year.”
In July 2021, Britain’s international ambassador Rita French expressed regret that Rwanda was not carrying out “transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations, including deaths in custody and torture.”
Rwanda is among governments believed to have paid Tony Blair’s Africa Governance Initiative for advice and possible “whitewashing,” though British governments have refused to disclose the “commercially sensitive” details about the former PM’s links to President Paul Kagame.
Concerns have also been raised about the fate of LGBT+ asylum seekers sent to the country due to evidence of ill-treatment and abuse faced by this community in Rwanda.
British-based refugee rights group Rainbow Migration said in a statement: “The agreement means that LGBTQI+ people who have fled life-threatening situations in their home countries, and sought safety and protection from the UK, will instead be sent to a country where it is not safe for LGBTQI+ people to be open about their sexual orientation or gender identity.”
Outrage at the plans continued today with former Tory cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell branding them “impractical” and “incredibly expensive.”
Former top civil servant Sir David Normington said the scheme was “inhumane, morally reprehensible, probably unlawful and may well be unworkable.”
Campaigners have also highlighted how a similar deal struck between Israel and Rwanda between 2014 and 2017 saw almost all deported refugees leave the country immediately, with many attempting to return to Europe via people-smuggling routes.
Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon said that deal, like Australia’s offshore model, did not achieve the stated aim of stopping people making dangerous journeys and only caused “significant harm and distress.”
No comments:
Post a Comment